Posted on 05/22/2004 5:41:40 PM PDT by b4its2late
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gen. Zinni: 'They've Screwed Up' May 21, 2004
Accusing top Pentagon officials of "dereliction of duty," retired Marine Gen. Anthony Zinni says staying the course in Iraq isn't a reasonable option.
"The course is headed over Niagara Falls. I think it's time to change course a little bit or at least hold somebody responsible for putting you on this course," he tells CBS News Correspondent Steve Kroft in an interview to be broadcast on 60 Minutes, Sunday, May 23, at 7 p.m. ET/PT.
The current situation in Iraq was destined to happen, says Zinni, because planning for the war and its aftermath has been flawed all along.
"There has been poor strategic thinking in this...poor operational planning and execution on the ground," says Zinni, who served as commander-in-chief of the U.S. Central Command from 1997 to 2000.
Zinni blames the poor planning on the civilian policymakers in the administration, known as neo-conservatives, who saw the invasion as a way to stabilize the region and support Israel. He believes these people, who include Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz and Douglas Feith, the undersecretary of defense, have hijacked U.S. foreign policy.
"They promoted it and pushed [the war]... even to the point of creating their own intelligence to match their needs. Then they should bear the responsibility," Zinni tells Kroft.
In his upcoming book, "Battle Ready," written with Tom Clancy, Zinni writes of the poor planning in harsh terms. "In the lead-up to the Iraq war and its later conduct, I saw, at minimum, true dereliction, negligence and irresponsibility; at worst, lying, incompetence and corruption," he writes.
Zinni explains to Kroft, "I think there was dereliction in insufficient forces being put on the ground and [in not] fully understanding the military dimensions of the plan."
He still believes the situation is salvageable if the United States can communicate more effectively with the Iraqi people and demonstrate a better image to them.
The enlistment of the U.N. and other countries to participate in the mission is also crucial, he says. Without these things, says Zinni, "We are going to be looking for quick exits. I don't believe we're there now, and I wouldn't want to see us fail here."
Also central to success in Iraq is more troops, from the United States and especially other countries, to control violence and patrol borders, he says.
Zinni feels that undertaking the war with the minimum of troops paved the way for the security problems the U.S. faces there now, the violence Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld recently admitted he hadn't anticipated.
"He should not have been surprised," says Zinni. "There were a number of people who before we even engaged in this conflict felt strongly that we underestimated...the scope of the problems we would have in [Iraq]."
The fact that no one in the administration has paid for the blunder irks Zinni. "But regardless of whose responsibility [it is]...it should be evident to everybody that they've screwed up, and whose heads are rolling on this?"
Does this sound familiar?
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/05/21/60minutes/main618896.shtml
"Zinni is talking about a group of policymakers within the administration known as "the neo-conservatives" who saw the invasion of Iraq as a way to stabilize American interests in the region and strengthen the position of Israel. They include Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz; Undersecretary of Defense Douglas Feith; Former Defense Policy Board member Richard Perle; National Security Council member Eliot Abrams; and Vice President Cheney's chief of staff, Lewis "Scooter" Libby."
"Zinni believes they are political ideologues who have hijacked American policy in Iraq."
?I think it's the worst kept secret in Washington. That everybody - everybody I talk to in Washington has known and fully knows what their agenda was and what they were trying to do,? says Zinni. "
?And one article, because I mentioned the neo-conservatives who describe themselves as neo-conservatives, I was called anti-Semitic. I mean, you know, unbelievable that that's the kind of personal attacks that are run when you criticize a strategy and those who propose it. I certainly didn't criticize who they were. I certainly don't know what their ethnic religious backgrounds are. And I'm not interested.?
Have you been accused of being "anti-Semitic" yet, or told you hate the "Jooos"?
Where have these brain-dead propagandists come from?
The nice thing is, there are a lot fewer of them these days.
Amazing you should ask. Most people look at you and Chamberlainbuff and ask the very same question. Isn't that a coincidence?
Uh, the oil is flowing. And some brought flowers.
But the evil bastards that would murder your children while you cried for them decided that they wanted to gum the works up. Better to kill them now then to let them spread.
The Iraq war was brilliant. In 20 years, it will be clear that it was as important as the fall of Hitler or the collapse of the Soviet Union.
Much of what you say is true...but be careful not to exagerate.
Those you mention are not against President Bush...they, like most, say we did some things right and some things wrong. Wow. What else is new in war? Last I heard Schwarzkopf was getting set to campaign for Bush. Have you heard something different? If he is campaigning for Bush in this election, then you may have overstated your case.
And Webb and Van Riper? Any links to whom they said they would support?
And your point about the ships being cut out by Bush Sr and Cheney. Again, don't get carried away here. Bush and Cheney did in fact cut the military after the end of the Cold War. But Clinton took those cuts and drove them much, much deeper...at least in the Army. Many of us believe the levels Bush Sr planned are about right in today's world. Those cuts that Clinton added to the original cuts are what many of us see is where the problem came from.
Do you have any specifics on ships? I am much more knowledgable on the ground forces than Navy numbers.
Hey Mr. Troll-hood, in case you haven't checked lately your kamp is in the minority and will quickly become known within conservative circles as the political mistake that cost the GOP the Whitehouse.
Neo-conned again...
This isn't some dirty hippie yelling into a microphone. This is the former commander of CentCom saying that he thinks that the lead-up to the war and it's aftermath were poorly planned and led by a group of idealists. He apparently doesn't want us to pull out early (which shows more spine than some 'pubs I've heard recently) or lose. Not having read the book, I can't comment on his counter-plan.
I have had enough of it. Just because this guy does not believe in pre-emptive strikes and attempted nation building that is definitely in our national interests, does not give him the right to write the barf down and make money to the detriment of our military! OUR KIDS!
General Barfsalot can wait until we either finish the job or give it up to rail against the Bush admin and to hawk his crummy book!
But hell no! He joins the now long list of perverts who publish their garbage and call it free speech!
You know, change a few names around and the last few paragraphs could have been written by an over-zealous anti-Bush DU'er.
You're taking criticism of the war plan to mean that Gen. Zinni either wants troops to die, or wants the US to fail. You're taking this way too personally. Calm down and read the entire interview. Gen. Zinni is as angry as you are, but for slightly different reasons, and he's just as worried about those men. He thinks that these people are screwing up, and that if they don't change their plan the Iraq war will fail, and a lot more of our men will have died for nothing.
I have come almost to the point of going postal about this! The country that I know and defended is not going to tolerate this crap lying down.
I repudiate this man and those like him who do this. They collectively do more damage to this country than a thousand enemies. They are despicable.
Hyperbole. General Zinni has given a lot to this country, and we should have enough respect to at least hear him out.
Despite Michael Moore's award, your lefty defeatist folks aren't nearly as majority as you think.
A very simple military principle explains exactly this point: better to have it and not need it, than to need it and not have it.
I support the President, I intend to vote for him and I despair at the thought of a Kerry victory. But that doesn't mean that Bush gets a free pass from me on every mistake he has made. One reason I supported the President, even before 9/11 is that I wanted a larger military (specifically the Army). During the first Gulf War we had an active duty Army of over 700,000 and we still needed to rely heavily on reservists to fight that limited conflict. Now with Afghanistan, Kosovo, Bosnia and a dozen other smaller commitments (all mostly the work of the Army) I am constantly frustrated to hear Freepers and Republican politicians repeatedly state that we do not need a larger force.
It's idiotic.
I was talking Paleo-conservative v. Neo-conservative you goof.
I have never voted for a non-conservative candidate and only been Neo-conned to vote for a few BIG gov't. candidates in the GOP.
If you think the Constitution Party is full of lefty defeatist folks, well I think you've got more problems than just being a Neo-con...
Apparently you haven't read the Constitpation Party nominees' anti-war rant.
Using a "k", for the "C" in the word "camp", is the same as the Commie leftists using a "k",instead of the proper C,when writing America.Perhaps you might care to reflect upon/rethink this tactic.
Another book.
Another 60 Minutes attack.
Huh? I don't respect anybody who goes on the fifth column program, 60 minutes, to peddle a book and receive his 30 pieces of silver.
The Constitution Party is the only party which is completely pro-life, anti-homosexual rights, pro-American sovereignty, anti-globalist, anti-free trade, anti-deindustrialization, anti-unchecked immigration, pro-second amendment, and against the constantly increasing expansion of unlawful police laws, in favor of a strong national defense and opposed to unconstitutional interventionism.
Sounds like the type of political party I could support!
"One of the reasons I was against our war with Iraq, and still am, is because I agree with something very wise that John Quincy Adams said in 1821. Referring to America, Adams said of our country:"
"She goes not abroad in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own."
In other words, applying what might be called the Adams Doctrine to Iraq, I hope for the best for Iraq. I hope Iraq WILL become free and independent, with liberty and justice for all. But, it is NOT our role to try to make this happen by shedding the blood of our fellow citizens in a war, and spending tens of billions of dollars there.
We are the guardians and defenders only of our OWN freedom, our OWN independence, our OWN liberty. When these things are seriously threatened, THEN we go to war. To try and save the world leads to big trouble -- which is what we are in in Iraq.
The Bible also warns us against misadventures like our war in Iraq. God tells us, in Proverbs 26:17, “He that passeth by, and meddleth with strife belonging not to him, is like one that taketh a dog by the ears.” Sad to say, in Iraq, we have meddled with strife that was none of our business and we are paying the price of having picked this particular dog up by the ears.
Incidentally, it’s interesting how, over the years, several people actually referred to Saddam Hussein, literally, as a monster. Rep. Henry Hyde, a Republican from Illinois, called Hussein a monster. The Republican Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania called him a monster. Al Gore also called him a monster.
Now, I have no doubt that Saddam Hussein was, and is, by ANY definition, a monster. But, he was not a monster who posed any real threat to our vital national security interests.
It was a very serious and dangerous mistake for us to go abroad to destroy him.
And and a very defeatist party...of course you would support the Constipation Party.
He lost alot of respect from me, when he said we should have received UN support before going to war.
Only an Idiot would make a remark like that.
They expose themselves so willingly. Are they just that dumb?
I don't know about that, but I am watching Zinni as I type, and he's making constant reference to "the civilian leadership" of the Pentagon, but didn't name names. When Steve Kroft asked him 'whose heads should be rolling,' he again was non-specific. He left it up to Kroft to say the names: Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Perle, Abrams, et al.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.